[tae667]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Did anyone notice that $3000 does NOT include a 56K modem?

About damn time. I don't know anyone who uses modem. Majority of people in here haven't had wired phoneline subscription in many years. Mobile phones and broadband it is.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tae667

About damn time. I don't know anyone who uses modem. Majority of people in here haven't had wired phoneline subscription in many years. Mobile phones and broadband it is.

A lot of people still send faxes... Personally I'm surprised it's not integrated on the mobo.

[gangster]

There could be a downward price adjustment sometime soon...its a test market when they release new equipment.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by tae667

About damn time. I don't know anyone who uses modem. Majority of people in here haven't had wired phoneline subscription in many years. Mobile phones and broadband it is.

It's not the modem, it's the lack of a modem. For $3000, I'd expect a $30 modem. In the past you could remove it and save $30, but now you're paying for nothing... or more for something.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

It's not the modem, it's the lack of a modem. For $3000, I'd expect a $30 modem. In the past you could remove it and save $30, but now you're paying for nothing... or more for something.

For all you know you aren't paying for anything, and if they included the modem it'd cost $3030.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by sworthy

They are still great systems, but the faster they get newer tech, the faster an iMac will have better specs.

Except they need to shove in an outdated piece of **** vid card in the imac, right?

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

For all you know you aren't paying for anything, and if they included the modem it'd cost $3030.

Only if you don't think the systems are highly overpriced. I think the modem should be included for $3000.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Only if you don't think the systems are highly overpriced. I think the modem should be included for $3000.

Yeah well I think dropping 2 grand on a nice imac would net you a decent video card, but instead you get ****. >shrug<

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i just ordered the dual 2.0


ahhhhh, i finally switch back since my powerbook died

[jlincoln]

Well, I'm officially a switcher. I understand the disappointment some feel, but seriously, Apple's hardware and software work together astoundingly well. I certainly don't mind perfection to peak, who woudn't?

[ReggieX]

nm. Decided to get a new one anyway. We'll see what video cards come down the pike in the next few months.

[Zim]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

A lot of people still send faxes... Personally I'm surprised it's not integrated on the mobo.

Agreed. Oddly enough plenty of small companies still ask for resumes by fax (I think its a way to prevent being deluged if they make it just a bit hard). Its rarely used, but for the negligible cost of a soft-modem, that should be buitin on the mobo.

And hey, broadband does go down too (and around here, with ice storms and hurricanes) your generator can power the computer (and most of the rest of the house ) but the cable system isn't powered, so a phone line option is a good thing).

At least its built in to my laptop.

Mike

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You probably have not been following Apple for that long, since we are *never* given more than a few graphics card choices in any given generation.

My family's kind enough to store my old Apple ][+, IIgs and Franklin Ace 1200 since my apartment doesn't have the room to spare. My Cube is in parts on my table pending either upgrades or eBay, and I'm typing this on a beaten-down 667mhz DB15 powerbook G4 that can't handle World of Warcraft. I've been "following Apple" since 1979, when I got that ][+.

So, dick size war aside, my objective objection stands. Apple video card selection is crap. It just _is_, in the same sense that Mount Everest is, or that Alma Cogan isn't.

Good night.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by OtisWild

My family's kind enough to store my old Apple ][+, IIgs and Franklin Ace 1200 since my apartment doesn't have the room to spare.....

A Franklin!! Ah, the memories! The original Apple clone. I remember sleepovers at a friend's house, playing Ultima on his Franklin till 3 in the morning. I couldn't afford a computer yet, but was saving up my $499 for the Atari 800...

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by OtisWild

Apple video card selection is crap.

Yeah, they won't even let you upgrade to a better card or anything! Oh wait! They do let you do that!

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

Yeah, they won't even let you upgrade to a better card or anything! Oh wait! They do let you do that!

Yes, you can upgrade (but only in a Powermac, but I'll leave that alone), but I reiterate:

APPLE VIDEO CARD SELECTION IS CRAP.

BTO or otherwise.

It's scandalous how completely crap BTO selection is, since you end up having to basically throw away money when you want decent video performance (which is between an overpriced 6800 BTO or an overpriced X800 retail).

Where is the NVidia 6600 series? 6800? 6800GT? ATI doesn't have their current gen in AGP for the most part, so they're right out.

Nope, once again, Apple video card selection is crap.

[riotge@r]

Originally Posted by OtisWild

Yes, you can upgrade (but only in a Powermac, but I'll leave that alone), but I reiterate:

APPLE VIDEO CARD SELECTION IS CRAP.

BTO or otherwise.

It's scandalous how completely crap BTO selection is, since you end up having to basically throw away money when you want decent video performance (which is between an overpriced 6800 BTO or an overpriced X800 retail).

Where is the NVidia 6600 series? 6800? 6800GT? ATI doesn't have their current gen in AGP for the most part, so they're right out.

Nope, once again, Apple video card selection is crap.

How is this Apple's fault? The better statement would be that ATI and Nvidia have a crappy video card selection.

[OtisWild]

Originally Posted by riotge@r

How is this Apple's fault? The better statement would be that ATI and Nvidia have a crappy video card selection.

Apple doesn't make their systems compatible with PC partsbin video boards, they require Apple BIOS 'secret sauce' for "Mac editions". If Apple were to put support for partsbin cards into their own system BIOS or drivers, we could use PC graphics boards. The hardware is identical except for those bits of BIOS, people have even flashed PC ATI boards with Mac BIOS and gotten working results.

I hate to think that NV has actually abandoned the Mac market, but that's what it looks like. It would be better for Apple to support PC partsbin video boards (at least those that it could officially support) within Apple mobos and drivers, but apparently the margins on 'Mac editions' are too phat.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by OtisWild

Yes, you can upgrade (but only in a Powermac, but I'll leave that alone), but I reiterate:

APPLE VIDEO CARD SELECTION IS CRAP.

Know why?


Because only a small percentage of mac users can shell out the $ for a super expensive g5 tower.... and of that small minority, an even SMALLER number are people who play games. And since gaming is a huge industry, and there's literally almost NOBODY with a g5 for games (sure, a few thousand, big woop), no cards get made for the mac platform.

THIS WOULD CHANGE IF APPLE MADE AN IMAC OR MINI OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL IT WITH AN UPGRADEABLE VIDEO CARD.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

Know why?


Because only a small percentage of mac users can shell out the $ for a super expensive g5 tower.... and of that small minority, an even SMALLER number are people who play games. And since gaming is a huge industry, and there's literally almost NOBODY with a g5 for games (sure, a few thousand, big woop), no cards get made for the mac platform.

THIS WOULD CHANGE IF APPLE MADE AN IMAC OR MINI OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL IT WITH AN UPGRADEABLE VIDEO CARD.

Considering Apple's pushing Core Image/Core Video and Motion, GPUs are definitely not just about games on the Mac.

It's bizarre that after the 9650, the only card available for the top end Power Mac is the uber-expensive GeForce FX 6800 DDL. Something in-between is definitely needed. I guess 3rd party will have to be it then.

Ironically, even the 1.8 GHz single Power Mac has the 9600XT, which is probably a little better than the 9650.

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Ironically, even the 1.8 GHz single Power Mac has the 9600XT, which is probably a little better than the 9650.

What makes you come to that conclusion? The 9650 has, in fact, the exact same 1.6billion texel/sec fillrate as the 9600XT (compared with 1.3 billion for the straight 9600). It's the same core. Unlike the 9600XT however, the 9650 can drive a 30" display with dual link DVI, and also it has 256MB of memory vs the 9600XT's 128MB of memory. The 9650 is in fact a better card.

I agree though, that it'd be nice to see a member of the 9800 family as a middle ground between the $50 9650 and $500 6800

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by deboerjo

What makes you come to that conclusion? The 9650 has, in fact, the exact same 1.6billion texel/sec fillrate as the 9600XT (compared with 1.3 billion for the straight 9600). It's the same core. Unlike the 9600XT however, the 9650 can drive a 30" display with dual link DVI, and also it has 256MB of memory vs the 9600XT's 128MB of memory. The 9650 is in fact a better card.

I agree though, that it'd be nice to see a member of the 9800 family as a middle ground between the $50 9650 and $500 6800

I agree I'd rather have the 9650 overall for the extra features, but AFAIK, you're wrong about the texel/s number.

The 9600 Pro is 1.6. The 9600 XT is 2.0. BTW, where did you get the 1.6 number for the 9650? That's exactly what I was expecting, but hadn't seen it posted on Apple's site.

Basically, it seems the 9650 (RV351) is just the 9600 Pro (RV350) on a smaller process, with a few tweaks.

ie. 9600 XT > 9600 Pro = 9650 > 9600

[powertrippin]

Really? Sweet. I'm definitely glad I got a 9600XT then.

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I agree I'd rather have the 9650 overall for the extra features, but AFAIK, you're wrong about the texel/s number.

The 9600 Pro is 1.6. The 9600 XT is 2.0. BTW, where did you get the 1.6 number for the 9650? That's exactly what I was expecting, but hadn't seen it posted on Apple's site.

Basically, it seems the 9650 (RV351) is just the 9600 Pro (RV350) on a smaller process, with a few tweaks.

ie. 9600 XT > 9600 Pro = 9650 > 9600

It's a little-known dirty secret that the Macintosh 9600XT is in fact clocked at the same speed as the PC 9600 Pro (400MHz), not the 500MHz of the PC version of the 9600XT. The Macintosh 9600XT is in fact a 9600 Pro in PC parlance, and the Macintosh 9600XT has a fill rate of 1.6. There was another thread about this on the MacNN forums a while ago, here, and if you want confirmation, check out the "learn more" link when you customize a Powermac's video card in the Apple Store; it shows the 9600XT as having a 1.6billion texel/sec fillrate.

The 9650 is also apparently clocked at 400MHz, since it has the same 1.6billion texel/sec fillrate as the Macintosh 9600XT and PC 9600 Pro. But since it has double the video memory and is dual-link DVI capable, it's definitly the better card than the Macintosh 9600XT.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by deboerjo

It's a little-known dirty secret that the Macintosh 9600XT is in fact clocked at the same speed as the PC 9600 Pro (400MHz), not the 500MHz of the PC version of the 9600XT. The Macintosh 9600XT is in fact a 9600 Pro in PC parlance, and the Macintosh 9600XT has a fill rate of 1.6. There was another thread about this on the MacNN forums a while ago, here, and if you want confirmation, check out the "learn more" link when you customize a Powermac's video card in the Apple Store; it shows the 9600XT as having a 1.6billion texel/sec fillrate.

OK, that's totally lame.

Thanks for point that out.

I also see the "Pro" is Core: 365MHz, Memory: 295MHz from that link. Lame too.

So I guess it should be:

PC 9600 XT > Mac 9600 XT = PC 9600 Pro = 9650 > Mac 9600 Pro.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

Know why?


Because only a small percentage of mac users can shell out the $ for a super expensive g5 tower.... and of that small minority, an even SMALLER number are people who play games. And since gaming is a huge industry, and there's literally almost NOBODY with a g5 for games (sure, a few thousand, big woop), no cards get made for the mac platform.

THIS WOULD CHANGE IF APPLE MADE AN IMAC OR MINI OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL IT WITH AN UPGRADEABLE VIDEO CARD.

You sure assume a whole lot about people who buy G5s.

However, the new iMacs have the 9600, so they finally have a decent card.

The iMacs and Minis won't have upgradable video because they're essentially laptops, and Apple doesn't make those upgradable either.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

A lot of people still send faxes... Personally I'm surprised it's not integrated on the mobo.

I am one of those people, as far as I know you don't have to BTO it though.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I am one of those people, as far as I know you don't have to BTO it though.

Yes you do. The modem is a $29 BTO now for the Power Macs.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

OK, that's totally lame.

Thanks for point that out.

I also see the "Pro" is Core: 365MHz, Memory: 295MHz from that link. Lame too.

So I guess it should be:

PC 9600 XT > Mac 9600 XT = PC 9600 Pro = 9650 > Mac 9600 Pro.

Benches from Macworld show that the Mac 9600 XT is actually faster than the Mac 9650 too:

"The one test result that puzzles us is the top-of-the-line dual-2.7GHz model�s Unreal Tournament 2004 score. With 256MB of video memory, we expect the ATI Radeon 9650 to beat the older 128MB Radeon 9600 XT found in the dual-2.5GHz system. But even after removing the 9600XT from the dual 2.5GHz Power Mac and installing it in the new system, the older card still bested the new one, even at higher resolutions."

The really lame part is the fact that the next step up is the US$450 upgrade to the 6800U DDL.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The really lame part is the fact that the next step up is the US$450 upgrade to the 6800U DDL.

Yeah, cuz you can't buy two different 9800 Pros from ATI.

Anyway, the new 2x2 arrived, and I couldn't be happier.

[Anand]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes you do. The modem is a $29 BTO now for the Power Macs.



Benches from Macworld show that the Mac 9600 XT is actually faster than the Mac 9650 too:

"The one test result that puzzles us is the top-of-the-line dual-2.7GHz model�s Unreal Tournament 2004 score. With 256MB of video memory, we expect the ATI Radeon 9650 to beat the older 128MB Radeon 9600 XT found in the dual-2.5GHz system. But even after removing the 9600XT from the dual 2.5GHz Power Mac and installing it in the new system, the older card still bested the new one, even at higher resolutions."

The really lame part is the fact that the next step up is the US$450 upgrade to the 6800U DDL.

You are not kidding. Look at this:

http://www.barefeats.com/rad9650.html

The 9650 is terrible!

[Todd Madson]

So, if I'm reading this right, my several year old Radeon 8500 flashed to Mac is about 75% of what one
of these cards is capable of.

Even I am forced to chime in and go "GEEEEZ GUYS, PATHETIC!"

I still would like a dual G5 though.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Anand

You are not kidding. Look at this:

http://www.barefeats.com/rad9650.html

The 9650 is terrible!

[FONT=Book Antiqua]Interesting... From your link:[/FONT]

Code:
----------------------- Core - Memory
Radeon 9600 XT -------- 401MHz	311MHz
Radeon 9650 ----------- 401MHz	270MHz
Radeon 9800 Pro 2X/4X - 378MHz	338MHz
Radeon 9800 Pro 8X ---- 351MHz	324MHz
Radeon 9800 Pro SE ---- 378MHz	338MHz
Radeon 9800 XT -------- 412MHz	365MHz
Radeon X800 XT -------- 473MHz	500MHz

[FONT=Book Antiqua]So they kept the core speed of the 9600 XT, but for some reason scrimped on the memory speed with the 9650. This seems purely a cost savings measure. Mind you, you may be able to increase the memory clock speeds fairly easily with ATIccelerator II.[/FONT]